"This is true even though individuals have privacy and copyright interests in materials they post to social networking sites. The current situation is that there’s very little law involved. Social networking sites determine on their own what, if anything, to do with a deceased user's account and the materials the user posted to the site. And their policies are not likely to reflect the collective interests that exist with respect to copyright law. It’s a little bit like letting the bank decide what to do with your money after you die."

So what is all this noise?

Well Professor Mazzone is referring to the fact that web giants like Facebook often archive your data post-mortem. Facebook opts for a tasteful solution publicly, closing the user's page and offering a memorial wall for friends to post memories.

Facebook seemingly offers a tasteful memorial, but it secretly saves the hidden digital "remains" of the dead, possibly for future profits.

But as the professor points out, behind the scenes Facebook is believed to be squirreling away the person's pictures, posts, and other content -- all things that could be of value if the site decided to act exploitively in the future. And people might not even realize Facebook had breached the privacy of the deceased, as it could in theory discretely sell the information to third parties.

Prof. Jason Mazzone, Univ. of Illinois Law School [Image Source: U of I College of Law]

He warns, "I suspect that Facebook thinks that there's going to be some future value to having all of that content locked away, either because it will have historical significance, or because Facebook thinks there will be something they are going to do with that content down the road. There are already pretty crude avatars being built based on their email exchanges and Facebook posts, so it’s conceivable that there could be things like holograms that are developed 100 years from now thanks to the mining of all of this data. But Facebook doesn’t know that for sure, and that’s why they see the value in holding on to all of this."

II. HIPAA Equivalent Needed for Digital Remains?

Professor Mazzone sees that as a major legal and privacy issue affecting social networking and blogging sites. And he feels that only the federal government has the power to enforce clear guidelines regarding dead peoples' "digital afterlife" on sites that span and do busines across multiple U.S. states.

"[I]t would be very difficult for any particular state to set up a legal regime that would adequately regulate Facebook, which not only operates all across the U.S. but also all over the world. Some states have enacted legislation in an effort to protect their own citizens, but it’s not at all clear how it would affect Facebook as a whole", he comments, "In order for this type of law to be effective, we have to turn to the federal government."

The terms in a contract are not necesarily enforceable just because it has been signed.

Taking an extreme example, you cannot sign a contract with someone where they agree to be murdered by you. Just because a contract exists and has been signed, it does not mean that the actions it allows are legal.

This is the same principle that would apply, where in giving up rights may not be necessarily legal. Globalchem cannot sell food that can kill you, when they are aware of the same.